Step 1- Read all the comments from the previous assignment.
Step 2- Choose one comment which is thoughtful.
Step 3-
First, paraphrase the comment you are responding to: For example: “Mr. Bello thinks that…”
Then, write a question about the chosen comment. The question must be: clear, sincere, useful and be the sort of question which leads to more questions. The question you write must complicate the comment’s argument, make the reader of the comment you are questioning think deeper. Stir up some intellectual trouble
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Nick said that the native americans and africans only had handmade weapons. Don't you think guns were also handmade? Nick also said that they could defeat natives and africans from a distance with guns without losing any men. Bows, arrows, and spears don't always miss so the europeans could lose men.
ian mankes said "that the europeans had guns that were stronger and more accurate than bows and arrows".
What if the bows and arrows were more stronger and accurate than guns? And if they were the native americans couldve been wiped because they were weak and had little armies.
My question is for Ian Mankes. What if the Native Americans never ran? What if they stayed there and fight. Couldn"t they have waited for the Europeans to come and slash the horses foot and instantly kill the fallen warrior when he tries to come back up on his foot. So running on foot might be slow but what if you stay and fight? So it"s ok if they have horses.
My question is for Ian Mankes. What if the Native Americans never ran? What if they stayed there and fight. Couldn"t they have waited for the Europeans to come and slash the horses foot and then the horse and rider falls.The Natives can instantly kill the fallen warrior when he tries to come back up on his foot. So running on foot might be slow but what if you stay and fight? So it"s ok if they have horses.
My question is for Ian. Do you think that the Europeans could have lost some men but not many? You said that "that the Europeans had guns that were stronger and more accurate than bows and arrows" that statement is true. But what if there enemy could have shot the men on the horses with an arrow and took the horses to get better range at the Europeans. Like Jonathan said what if the europeans had a little army and the natives had all of there troops with them. Or even they could have an Allie that helped the natives to kill the Europeans.
My question is for Ian Mankes. Ian said that on horses, the Europeans could ride out to capture anyone faster than they could run. My question is what if the Native Americans shot their arrow towards the horses and the horses died don’t you think that the Native Americans would have a greater advantage than the Europeans if they had to travel by foot because the Native Americans were familiar with the land and are use to traveling by foot ?
My question is for Ian Mankes. Isn't it possible that the bow and arrows could also have better accuracy? The gun and the bow both shoot from far distance,but it's also possible that the bow and arrow can go the same speed and accuracy as the gun.
My question is for Nick. He said "The Native Americans and Africans only had handmade weapons like bows and arrows and spears. Horses and armor also protected European warriors and made them faster." A Native American could shoot a horse down using a bow and arrow which meant the horse would have to fall. The European riding the horse could get hurt by the fall or if he doesn't get injured, he'll be vulnerable. A Native American could kill him as he's on the ground. Also since a European is riding a horse, they would also have to focus on controlling the horse. Unlike the Europeans, the Native Americans weren't riding any horses so they didn't have to focus on controlling it.
Andrew said that "One of the advantages for the Europeans is that they had guns. Guns probably had a greater accuracy, had a greater range. Native Americans traveled on foot where as traveled on horses.” Even though the guns had a better accuracy then the bow and arrow, aren’t the poison darts dangerous like the gun? What if the Native Americans did know how to travel on horses and took the Europeans’ horse against them?
My question is to Elaine Chan. The Europeans spread diseases to Native Americans but they did not know they were spreading deadly diseases. Do you think the Europeans would still trade with others if they knew the diseases were contagious? Why?
My question is for Andrew. Andrew stated that "Guns probably had a greater accuracy, had a greater range, more power/force, and less change of fatigue to overcome the Europeans." Guns could have had a better or greater accuracy but what if back in 1492 the guns weren't as high tech as they are now couldn't the arrows be stronger.The arrows were also poisonous if the arrow would touch them they would die. A gun could miss very easily if your not very accurate.
Elizabeth said "Europe was in the east west direction which made it easier for them to spread ideas to other areas". Also she said "Europeans had the power and used it". Why would Europeans spread ideas to others? Wouldnt they be worried another nations would be the idea better and have more power?
Andrew Yee said "Guns probably had a greater accuracy, had a greater range, more power/force, and less change of fatigue to overcome the Europeans. The Native Americans used bows, arrows, daggers, and probably poison darts." The part with the guns is true, but couldn't the Native Americans shot any of the europeans with their poison darts? I mean sure the poison can't kill them all but it could kill some.
Andrew also said europeans know how to write and the natives didn't. How do you know that the Natives can't write, they must have their own written language, their not stupid.
Michelle Tsvitman said that the advantages that the Europeans had were guns. Not everyone had guns; the Native Americans had knives and spears, and China had guns too, but they used their gun powder for fireworks instead of emergency uses like when using their guns in battles. Also, Michelle stated that the Europeans had an advantage over transportation. The Europeans had horses but the Native Americans didn't. Now, the questions i have for Michelle is,didn't the Native Americans also have bows and arrows? Because if they did, they could've replaced it with guns because they can also shoot from far away places like regular guns would. Another question is don't you think the Native Americans would've had at least a few horses? Or else how else will they travel to far away places? If they walk, it will take them a long time.
Nick Said that the Europeans had the advantage of advanced technology, like steel to make guns and armor, the Native Americans and Africans only had handmade weapons like bows and arrows and spears, and that the Europeans can shoot from longer distances and lose not alot of men. Dont you think that it would be important to Know how to use the weapons to kill many people? The Europeans might have better and stroger weapons but might not know how to use them, and the Native Americans and Africans might have weaker wespons but might know how to use them good enough to kill more Europeans than Europeans killing them.
My Question is for Jade Fenton. He said that the Europeans were the only people who had guns. Didn't China also have guns but they used their gun powder for a differnt purpose. Why would China have gun powder but no guns?
My comment is for Victor. He said that the Europeans had fudelism. That did not help at all for why Europe was more powerful. It was mostly because of guns made possible by the gunpowder of Asia which was being used for fireworks.
My question is to Elaine Chan. The Europeans spread diseases to Native Americans but they did not know they were spreading deadly diseases. Do you think the Europeans would still trade with others if they knew the diseases were contagious? Why? you should explain this more also the Europeans spreaded more deieses than deadly ones
Ian wrote that the Europeans had a greater advantage for guns and horses. My question for ian is, The native americans had speers and arrows,so the guns eventually ran out of bullets and the horses eventually grew weak and died but the spears and arrows were homemade tools so they could of been re-made easily.
ian mankes said...
"The Europeans had guns. Guns could shoot from a farther distance and had better accuracy then bows and arrows. On horses, the Europeans could ride out to capture anyone faster than they could run". But if the Europeans were riding on horses the Native Americans could have used there arrows and bring it down. Also the Europeans need ammo to shoot they would run out eventually, but on the other hand, the Native Americans arrow were made from wood. So the arrows were easier to make quickly if they ran out.
Yvette said The Native Americans were weakened, and therefore they were not able to defend their land when the Europeans arrived.
Question: How were the Native Americans weakened?
My question is for Ian. You said that the Europeans had guns for better acurracy and horses to help them capture Natives faster. What about happens if the Natives escape without them knowing. What about diseases? Is it an important factor for the amount of the Natives that are living today. They can shoot the Natives one by one or capture them one by one but would never get that done in a short period of time right?
Hassan said "The one main reason that they had the advantages is because they had guns". He said,"They could use the guns to shoot enemies or even kill an animal and cook its meat or use the fur for warmth". My question for Hassan is you said the Europeans could use their guns to kill animals for warmth and food is there any other uses animal skin and fur could be used for and is their any other weapon the animals could be killed with. What if the Native Americans did not run and also had these guns,the dangerous weapons the Europeans would be handeling would be being pointed right back at them.
Post a Comment